A quality manager opens a completed evaluation and sees a failing answer that does not match the conversation. The tempting fix is to change the answer, resubmit, and move on. That is too quick.
Correct a submitted Dynamics 365 quality evaluation only after you preserve the source evidence and identify what failed. The problem may be a wrong AI prediction, vague criteria, missing conversation context, or a human reference that was never clear. A cleaner score is not the goal. A defensible record is.
Microsoft now allows authorized users to edit a completed evaluation. The edit does not take effect until it is submitted again. That makes correction possible, but it also means the correction needs an operating rule.
Freeze the evidence before changing the answer
Start with the original case or conversation, the criteria version, the predicted answer, the evaluator status, and any summary or suggested action already produced. Preserve the timestamps too. Do not begin with the dashboard score.
This matters because an evaluation is used downstream. A changed answer may alter a summary, coaching recommendation, exception queue, or quality trend. If you cannot show what the system saw at the time, you cannot tell whether the correction repaired a prediction or merely rewrote history.
Microsoft says only submitted evaluations in the Completed state can be edited. An evaluation that is still In progress is not eligible. The person editing also needs the Quality Admin or Quality Manager role, or the specific override privilege described in Microsoft's evaluation guidance.
In a shared support operation, make one person responsible for preserving the evidence package before any override. That package should be small enough to inspect, but complete enough for another qualified reviewer to reach a decision independently.
Decide what is actually wrong
The visible wrong answer is only a symptom. Classify the error before you edit it.
A prediction error means the evidence and criterion are adequate, but the AI selected the wrong response. A criteria error means careful reviewers can reasonably interpret the instruction in different ways. An input error means the required transcript, case field, attachment, or context was absent. A reference error means the human answer used as the benchmark is itself weak. These failures need different owners.
For example, suppose a representative promised a refund only after a supervisor approved it. If the criterion asks whether the representative followed policy but never states whether approval must appear in the transcript, two reviewers may disagree honestly. Changing one answer will not fix the criterion.
The same principle applies when the customer moved between channels. Review the evidence held in the shared inbox and the relevant customer record before assuming the final conversation contains the whole story.
Use the smallest supported correction
Once the cause is known, make the smallest change that restores truth. Do not edit surrounding answers because the total score looks uncomfortable.
| What you observe | Correct action | What remains blocked |
|---|---|---|
| Clear evidence supports a different answer | Edit that answer and record the source | Coaching until resubmission |
| The criterion is ambiguous | Keep the exception and revise the criterion separately | Broad score comparison |
| Required evidence is missing | Mark the case for input repair or exclusion | A confident pass or fail |
| The evaluation is still in progress | Let the assigned review finish or resolve the workflow state | Any submitted override |
| The AI run ended in error | Troubleshoot the failed evaluation | Manual score repair presented as AI output |
Microsoft's workflow is precise. Open a Completed evaluation, select Edit, change the necessary response, and submit it. Changes are not applied until that final submission. The evaluation then returns to a read only submitted state.
Keep override access narrow through your security controls. The ability to correct a record is useful. The ability to change many records without an independent reason is a reporting risk.
Regenerate the summary deliberately
An answer and its narrative summary can contradict each other after a correction. Microsoft says the summary can regenerate when changed responses are submitted, if the administrator has enabled that setting. If no answer changed, regeneration is skipped. The option can support manual, AI assisted, and AI agent evaluations.
Read the new summary against the corrected answers. Do not assume regeneration makes it right. The Responsible AI FAQ warns that AI quality systems may miss subtle context such as sarcasm or cultural nuance and says human judgment still matters.
This is where an AI workflow needs a human stop condition. If the corrected answer and regenerated summary still conflict, keep the evaluation out of coaching and aggregate reporting until a named reviewer resolves it.
Protect coaching and reporting downstream
Treat a correction as a controlled event, not a quiet edit. Record the evaluation identifier, original answer, corrected answer, evidence location, reason class, editor, reviewer, and resubmission time. If the original result already triggered coaching, tell the coach that the record changed.
Do not erase the fact that an override happened. Overrides reveal where criteria, input capture, or automation need work. A weekly review can separate isolated prediction mistakes from repeated criteria defects. If the same question keeps being corrected, repair and test the criterion rather than normalizing permanent manual cleanup.
The customer support scorecard should also distinguish original automated output from finalized reviewed output. Otherwise teams may compare two periods that were governed differently.
One sensible release rule is simple. A corrected evaluation may return to coaching only after the evidence package is preserved, the cause is classified, the answer is resubmitted, the summary is checked, and the downstream owner is notified. If any step is missing, the evaluation stays an exception.
DripTell is designed to keep customer context, ownership, and operational history together, but the correction policy still belongs to the business. If you want to map that policy into a live support process, ask for a practical review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can every Dynamics 365 quality evaluation be edited?
No. Microsoft's current guidance says the evaluation must be submitted and Completed. An In progress evaluation cannot be edited, and the editor needs an authorized role or the specific override privilege.
Does changing an answer update the evaluation immediately?
No. The change takes effect only after the edited evaluation is submitted again. Until then, treat the correction as unfinished.
Should a manager correct a score that feels unfair?
Not on feeling alone. Review the source evidence and criteria version, classify the error, and obtain an independent judgment when the case is consequential. The objective is a supportable answer, not a preferred score.
What if the regenerated summary is still wrong?
Keep the evaluation out of coaching and trend reporting. Record the mismatch, review the finalized answers, and route the exception to the owner of the criteria or evaluation process.
Want help applying this guide?Ask the DripTell team
From reading to action
Want help applying this to your business?
Share your details. We will read the article you are on and start with a useful answer for your team.
DripTell Editorial
Practical guidance reviewed by the DripTell product and customer workflow team.
See how DripTell checks product claims, uses primary sources and handles corrections.
Editorial and source policy
